Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to recommend an installation of a driveway via a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to recommend an installation of a driveway via a disabled facilities grant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In June 2022, the Council’s occupational therapist (OT) visited Mr X at his property to complete an assessment. Recommendation was made for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to be made for some adaptations.
7. During the assessment, Mr X’s parents asked the OT whether they could also recommend a DFG for the front garden to be adapted into a driveway. The OT explained this was not justified as Mr X could walk independently to the bus stop, which was several streets away. The OT concluded that this meant even if the car was not parked directly outside the house, Mr X could still walk to the car.
8. The OT also discussed the case with a manager following comments made by Mr X’s mother that Mr X was more likely to use his car if it was parked directly outside the house due to Mr X having low motivation to go out. The decision was that this did not provide a basis for an eligible need. The Council confirmed its decision in writing that it was not necessary and appropriate for a driveway to be installed to meet Mr X’s needs.
9. In April 2023, Mr X was informed by the Council’s refuse service to move his car from the road on Wednesdays to allow bin collections to take place. Mr X asked the Council to again consider a DFG to allow a driveway to be installed.
10. The Council explained in its complaint response a DFG was not appropriate as the requested adaption was not necessary and appropriate to meet Mr X’s needs. The Council also confirmed it did not consider a further OT assessment was required as it was not likely to lead to a different conclusion.
11. An investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council took appropriate action to assess Mr X to assess what adaptations are necessary and appropriate to meet his needs. The Council has provided a clear rationale as to why a driveway is not a necessary and appropriate adaptation to meet Mr X’s needs. As the Council made its decision properly, we cannot criticise or find fault with the decision itself.
12. Further, the Council’s request for Mr X to move his car every Wednesday to allow access for the refuse lorry would not affect the Council’s rationale as to why a driveway was not necessary to meet Mr X’s needs. It remains the case Mr X can walk to his car even when it is not parked directly outside his house.
13. An investigation is also not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s request for Mr X to move his car every Wednesday. This is because the Council has provided its reasons for the request and has also now provided a more specific timeframe for when the car needs to be moved.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman